Letters to the Editors

Time for change

Re: “Canada a ‘part-time democracy’” (Jan. 15, 2010).

Dear Editors,

I can’t agree more with the sentiments expressed by Elamin Abdelmahmoud in Friday’s issue of the Journal.

There’s a need for a shift in Canada’s political climate. This most recent prorogation of Parliament seems to be more evidence of that.

But we still aren’t willing to do anything about it. If I’m not mistaken, our generation’s becoming more involved as leaders, both locally and globally. But this new engagement is coupled with a disappointingly low turnout at the polls for our age bracket.

While it’s great that we’re driving grassroots movements on Facebook and Twitter, we’ve failed to demand the same change at the polls. That’s like saving up enough money for a down payment but forgetting to buy the house.

At the time I’m writing this, the Facebook group “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” boasts nearly 200,000 members and grows larger every day. But unless Canadians show their views—not just by starting social movements, but actually voting for or against the politics of their choosing—Canada won’t see real political change.

Take this as a call to arms, then. Make the effort to find a political issue or party you like–or dislike–and make your mark. All it takes is a simple “X” on a ballot to send a message to politicians that they’ll really understand.

Jordan Ray,

ArtSci ’12

Early bird special

Re: “Housing Guide Delivers” (Jan. 19, 2010).

Dear Editors,

After reading the editorial “Housing Guide Delivers” in the Jan. 19 edition of the Journal, I want to clarify the availability of rental accommodations in Kingston.

In the closing paragraph of the editorial, it states “with no discernable housing shortage in Kingston, house-hunters can approach the MAC’s new guide knowing there will be a place for everyone.” Unfortunately, this perpetuates the idea that there’s a surplus of rental units available, which is in stark contrast to the information contained in CMHC’s 2009 Rental Market Report for Kingston. Kingston’s vacancy rate is unchanged from 2008 and is now the lowest in Ontario, at 1.3 per cent, with the geographic area surrounding Queen’s having a vacancy rate of only 1.1 per cent. This has caused rents to increase as the market responds to increased demand, as noted in the report, especially for new rental units that were built after 2000. Although technically there may be a “place for everyone,” students who start their search early will find that they have a wider selection of rentals to chose from that meet their criteria.

As the saying goes, the early bird gets the worm.

Ewen MacKinnon,

President, Kingston Rental Property Owners Association

Raw emotion not ideal

Re: “Let Glenn Beck Speak” (Jan. 19, 2010).

Dear Editors,

Although I acknowledge there’s a place for emotion in political debate, I take issue with Jordan Ray’s opinion piece.

He argues Glenn Beck’s attention to people’s fears is important because it shows those fears have yet to be addressed.

But, in the same piece, Mr. Ray mentions that those fears remain despite the President’s repeated claims that health care is nothing to worry about.

How exactly is one supposed to allay the fears of health care opponents such as Glenn Beck if reassurances don’t do it?

Following Mr. Ray’s opinion, it would be useful to passionately advocate the benefits of the health care bill.

But in all likelihood, it would polarize the debate to the point that nothing would get done—if it hasn’t already reached that point.

Mr. Ray has a pretty rosey vision of emotions, as well. As he says, “we fight because we think the other party is evil or has done something wrong.” Yes, that’s why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. It’s widely regarded as a bad decision. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s also logical.

In retrospect, the Iraq War was built upon largely emotional arguments with little logical basis. Now we regret not seeing the logic beforehand.

Mr. Ray also says, “we’re kind to each other because we think it’s the right thing to do or it makes us feel good.” But what if being kind doesn’t make us feel good? What if being mean or abusive makes us feel good?

What about lynch mobs in the Deep South of the U.S.? Or the American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, who stripped prisoners and made them walk on all fours like dogs, among other things?

From what we can tell, that was done as a form of entertainment. If I freely expressed my emotions all the time, I’d probably have brain damage from all the fights I started and several failed relationships. I’m thankful neither of those is the case.

That’s not to say there’s no place for emotion in logical debate. But raw emotion itself doesn’t make for a useful exchange of ideas—it impedes the freedoms of others and limits progress, which is, after all, the point of political debate.

Jody Zink,

ArtSci ’10

Step it up, ASUS

Re: “ASUS equity commissioner resigns” (Jan. 19, 2010).

Dear Editors,

I’d like to express my disappointment in the way you presented your article “ASUS equity commissioner resigns.”

After thoroughly reading the article and from my knowledge of ASUS, I believe Sarah Jacobs did everything possible despite ASUS’s attitude towards diversity. It’s necessary to address diversity issues at Queen’s. ASUS made the right step in creating the position last year.

But the student body must realize the more probable motivation behind this decision. Before Jacob Mantle’s Islamophobic comment on Facebook, diversity issues at Queen’s were just as common on campus—and its government—as they are now. The media’s reaction to Mantle’s comment put ASUS in an uncomfortable position and creating of an equity commissioner provided an image of diversity at Queen’s. Sarah strove to promote diversity on campus while in her position and found she didn’t have the support of the student government that was supposedly excited to embrace diversity.

Sarah resigned due to health issues and Queen’s should be very sorry to lose her. Her strength and passion for diversity is an inspiration to us all.

I hope that ASUS, as well as the rest of the student community, will fully commit to the next equity commissioner. We must realize that if we really want to embrace diversity at Queen’s, ASUS and the student body must embrace the efforts of the position. Sarah’s anti-oppression workshops were and are a wonderful and necessary idea and I expect the new equity commissioner will retry the initiative.

I absolutely demand that attendance at these workshops be mandatory for every member of the ASUS government and that further initiatives are created for the general student body. ASUS should be less concerned with how many hours they spend in the office and more concerned with what’s happening outside the walls of the Core—including embracing diversity at Queen’s. Promoting an image with no support is transparent and embarrassing to students and alumni.

Megan Svarich-Knights,

ArtSci, ’11

Opposing views

Dear Editors,

Re: “Let Glenn Beck speak” (Jan. 19, 2010).

I don’t watch Glenn Beck’s television show, so I can’t comment on Mr. Ray’s assessment of it. His claims regarding the nature of the opposition to Obamacare, however, are unmitigated rubbish.

Mr. Ray writes that the fears people have regarding Obamacare “aren’t rooted in logical points or problems with the impending legislation. Instead, they arise out of raw emotion.” The health care legislation the Democrats have been trying to push through Congress for months effectively involves a government takeover of one sixth of the American economy, unsustainable deficit spending and a radical and irreversible—not to mention unconstitutional—change in the relationship between the citizen and the state.

The proposed legislation consists of around 2,000 pages of dense legalese worked out in backroom deals between legislators and special interest groups, the full implications of which are impossible to understand.

It involves the creation of over 100 new federal bureaucracies and gives these the power to write additional thousands of pages of regulations at their own discretion in an already over-regulated industry.

It involves an unprecedented expansion of government power over some of the most important aspects of people’s lives. Are these not reasonable grounds for concern?

Mr. Ray states: “The President has articulated time and time again there isn’t cause for concern on health care, but their fears remain.” Foolish people.

If only they were unemotional enough to realize that if the Obama-messiah says it, it must -be true.

Contrary to what Mr. Ray claims, there are people making principled, rational arguments against Obamacare and proposing alternative reforms.

Among them are such organizations as Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Even more embarrassing than the utter lack insight in Mr. Ray’s piece is the absurdly patronising pose he adopts, generously insisting that the irrational, emotion-driven right-wingers have a right to be heard while making a point of relating that he is among those “laughing the hardest at [Beck] on a regular basis”—thus presumably establishing his credentials as one of the logical people.

Although it’s not worth an analysis, Jordan Ray’s piece is a window into the deluded arrogance that characterizes the world view of the political left, in which crude, self-congratulatory psychologizing replaces even the pretence of genuine intellectual engagement with opposing points of view.

Douglas Treilhard,

ArtSci ’10

QMP controversy

Re: “Model Behaviour?” (Jan. 19, 2010).

Dear Editors,

Your recent article about Queen’s Model Parliament (QMP) was inaccurate, poorly researched, unrepresentative in the opinions it presented and offensive to the past organizers of the much-beloved Queen’s institution.

Not only that, your choice of photo has caused many people to associate me with a culture of boorishness and joke bills that didn’t exist while I was at QMP.

QMP was incredibly well run from 2006 to 2008. The delegates, who were far more diverse than the “limited clique of politics students” you mentioned in your article, worked incredibly hard to bring innovative and well-written policy proposals to the table.

Although there were always a lot of laughs in the chamber, I can remember nearly every political figure or media commentator who visited our simulation remarking that we were far more professional and well behaved than the actual Members of Parliament who normally occupied the house.

As evidenced by the photo of me you chose to include, we all had a lot of fun at the bar. But I was always quite proud of the fact that my party benches were full at 9 a.m. the next morning.

To suggest that people didn’t appreciate the privilege of using the House of Commons in those years is patently false.

Your article does a terrible disservice to people like J.D. Barnes who ran incredibly successful and professional conferences in those years. By allowing Conal Slobodin to boast over the improvements he has supposedly brought to QMP, you have belittled the work of those who came before him.

QMP is a much beloved institution. Many of my undergraduate classmates look back fondly on it as one of the real highlights of their time at Queen’s.

For the Journal to stir up controversy with such a profoundly ignorant and unsubstantiated piece as the one by Craig Draeger in your last issue is shameful. Had the Journal done some proper research, they might have presented a truer picture of the event.

The Journal should retract the article and print an apology to the former organizers and participants of QMP.

You should also clarify that I no longer have a dirty moustache.

Chris Horkins,

ArtSci ’08

Law ’11

Budget dialogue

Dear Editors,

With the AMS elections coming up, one would hope some of the prescient issues facing the university will be up for discussion.

During the time it takes me to walk from one of the entrances of the JDUC to QP, I’m typically eavesdropping on the conversations of my peers.

So imagine my disappointment to find that none of these hushed voices, between discussing bathroom hook-ups and Facebook gaffes, have mentioned the budget cuts that loom over our school’s withering finances.

Even more troublesome, the at-risk programs tend to be those not thought of as being “what Queen’s does best.” As a student in one such program, I am offended both by the thought that Queen’s may soon support fewer BA students as we march towards unemployment, and by the revelation that Queen’s might not excel at everything it deems worthy of getting out of bed for.

But the problem remains—where to cut?

Previously, I favoured a system of my own devising called “Homecoming Roulette,” in which departments receive cuts proportional to the number of their students charged over this dubious weekend.

I know I’m in no position to make such a suggestion, but campus’s silence on the issue demands action.

A true solution can only be reached by casting our lot in with the most dynamic and visionary personality we can find.

In these crucial times, we need someone to take hold of the AMS, represent the sinking arts students and rule the affairs of the University like a king or queen.

David B. Hobbs,

ArtSci ’10

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content